The Instigator
Norah
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jingle_Bombs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Having a president is not really necessary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 348 times Debate No: 81678
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Norah

Pro

In my opinion I say not necessary and here is why:

1. Many of his/her decisions are driven by politics, money or influence.
2. Conversations and negotiations with foreign nations can be accomplished by ambassadors and emissaries reporting back to a committee or collective body in government.
3. With the influence of money and power the position can be just as destructive and authoritarian as any king or dictator can be and can do it in far more subtle ways.
4. Money and political clout gives citizens very limited choices for president. Without millions of dollars in the bank or without a serious backing by a political party a common citizen rarely can have a chance at serving in an elected office.

I'm not saying that the president or the office can't do good things for the country, but with some adjustments I don't really believe that a president is a necessity.
Jingle_Bombs

Con

"Many of his/her decisions are driven by politics, money or influence."

And? What else should executive policy decisions be based on? Number of likes on facebook?


"Conversations and negotiations with foreign nations can be accomplished by ambassadors and emissaries reporting back to a committee or collective body in government."

Ambassadors and most heads of executive departments (Homeland Secretary, State, Defense, Federal Reserve, Justice Department) are all appointed by the President. US ambassadors also report directly to the President and serve as diplomats and negotiators to his foreign policy (not the Secretary of State). In order to replace the President you would still need some sort of decision-making manger to formulate plans and manage officials for all the different departments of government – who in many ways, will still be forced to act like a President.


"With the influence of money and power the position can be just as destructive and authoritarian as any king or dictator can be and can do it in far more subtle ways."

No. Unlike a monarch or dictator, the President is representative of all the people through democratically free elections, is bound to obey a constitution, and can only serve for a maximum of two 4-year terms. Presidential powers are also limited through three branches of government (Checks & Balances) who control the legislative and judicial parts of government.

Also keep in mind that the Office of President of the United States was originally set up by the founding fathers to replace the need for a king and absolute ruler in the first place.

"Money and political clout gives citizens very limited choices for president. Without millions of dollars in the bank or without a serious backing by a political party a common citizen rarely can have a chance at serving in an elected office."

In the United States, any person of appropriate age and place of birth is legally able to run for Office of President of the United States. This includes women and minorities. Women and minorities are not legally eligible to run for office in Saudi Arabia. And in many other countries (like Russia & China) they would still face cultural discrimination.

"I'm not saying that the president or the office can't do good things for the country, but with some adjustments I don't really believe that a president is a necessity."

Even in a tiny Athenian style direct democracy, the Athenians were still obligated to appoint stategoi (military generals, central chairpersons) to conduct military affairs and execute the laws. In a country as big, vast, diverse, and complex as the United States, it is altogether more important and vital for the government to have a strong executive leader, which is accomplished through the Office of President of the United States.

Debate Round No. 1
Norah

Pro

Norah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dgriff 1 year ago
Dgriff
I agree it really isn't necessary. In my eyes he's just a pawn. They all have their agenda. But with checks and balances no matter what they propose they are subject to not passing. Other than excective orders they are either successful or not based on the house and Senate
No votes have been placed for this debate.